Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts

Tuesday 1 August 2023

Letters past and present....

 

INFORMATION EXCHANGE WITH A TWIST


From The Echo archives, May 2021:


A confusion of letters in Ocean Shores


Apparently, there is another Ocean Shores in another part of the world, and they have deer…


The Ocean Shores & District Garden Club secretary, Claire, was a little perplexed when she was replying to a lady named Marilyn who showed interest in coming to the club meeting last week.


Marilyn wrote


I moved to Ocean Shores in September and was hoping to find a garden club.

I was hoping to learn more about how people garden, especially with the deer population here.


Deer?


Claire was very curious and intrigued about the possible deer of Ocean Shores. She responded to Marylin with all the club details of time and location of meetings and other events and was happy to welcome the new member to the Far North Coast club.


This came from Marilyn…


Looking forward to first meeting


Thank you, so much, for your reply. I’m looking forward to attending my first meeting Monday.


I’ve never been to a club meeting. I haven’t had time for gardening in years.


The house we moved to had no plants at all. I just started planting 80 pots of daffodils, lilacs, snowball bushes, and a few other plants.


Have to get several peonies still, too. I’m planning on building a greenhouse this year too. I’m sure I’ll have lots of questions going forward.


See you Monday!


Claire wrote


I think you have us confused with another garden club.


Ocean Shores is in the Northern Rivers 30 minutes past Byron Bay.


Deer aren’t a problem here and the flowers you mention we would love to grow but aren’t suitable for a subtropical climate.


Intrigued to know where you live.


Uho-oh!


Marilyn wrote:


Oh no! Are you in Australia?!


I’m in Ocean Shores, Washington USA! I thought I finally got the right one. I typed in my city and state and thought it sounded right. Darn!


Well, I’m sorry for taking your time, and the confusion. Thank you anyway. The search will go on, I guess.


Marilyn

Ocean Shores

Washington, USA


What Marilyn may not know is that Ocean Shores was originally a land holding owned by a company – Wendell West of Washington.


The development had the backing of American singer Pat Boone. Ocean Shores was named after Boone’s residence in Ocean Shores, Washington in the United States.


It really actually is a small world after all.



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR - THE LONG AND THE SHORT OF IT


Clarence Valley Independent, Letters, 26 July 2023:


Can I begin by thanking Oscar Tamsen for his considered and respectful letter regarding the upcoming referendum and The Voice (CVI 12/7/23). I am certainly no one of authority but I offer the following as a means of hopefully clarifying some issues.


The referendum if passed will require the government to establish a body, The Voice, which may make representations to the parliament and executive on matters of concern to First Nations Australians. Very senior constitutional lawyers and former high court judges, in spite of being misquoted by some politicians, have made it clear that this could not be interpreted as going beyond providing advice and definitely does not imply any sort of veto. As to what “matters” The Voice might proffer advice on, trying to place definitive limits beyond “matters affecting First Nations Australians” could be problematic and really quite unnecessary. I’m confident indigenous Australians would reject Voice members who did not concentrate on critical issues like health, housing, education and justice, and of course the parliament and executive would be unlikely to give a lot of time to advice that was not pertinent to those issues. The check and balance is the ballot box.


Now to the details of the structure of The Voice. Our constitution is not a weighty tome. It was largely a power sharing agreement between the six founding colonies. What they were prepared to cede to a commonwealth parliament and just the barest details of how that parliament would be structured, again in order to protect the interests of the states. There is a lot of detail not enshrined in the constitution, quite deliberately, in order that it be flexible enough to cope with changing circumstances and needs. For instance, much of the workings of the parliament is left to convention, not constitutional prescription. Only very broad guidelines are given on the structure of the parliament or indeed the voting system. The details were left to the parliament to implement and modify over time if desired and they have been modified a number of times. It’s when you do put a lot of detail in a constitution you run the risk of unintended consequences down the track. The classic example is the provision in the American constitution of the right to bear arms. It seemed fine 250 years ago in the context of just coming out of a revolution and war of independence but is very problematic now and very problematic to remove.


So, it should come as no surprise that the referendum question itself is very light on for detail. Instead, it is designed to enshrine the principle of a Voice. So why doesn’t the government put forward the detail it intends to legislate should The Voice get up? Two points. You can imagine that if they did many people would assume that at the referendum they were voting for, or against, that detail. But this would be wrong as the legislated detail could be changed by future governments. You can also bet that certain politicians would go through that detail line by line looking for points to argue on, even though they know very well that any detail they don’t like could be altered should they find themselves in government. Legislated detail is a political issue to be debated in parliament and if necessary, resolved at elections. It is highly likely that the detail of The Voice will be modified over time to improve it or meet changing needs, but no future government will be able to simply abolish it without reference to the people by means of a democratic referendum.


The referendum has come out of a process of years of broad consultation and expert advice. We can summarise this as the Uluru process. First Nation Australians are asking for recognition as the original custodians of this land going back tens of thousands of years, but they want recognition which is meaningful and practical, not just nice words in a preamble. They are tired of advisory bodies being abolished at the whim of the government of the day. A voice to parliament is a practical way of improving policies and outcomes. We know that programs with local input work better.


What has been put forward is very modest, generous really, and it provides a pathway towards true reconciliation and an opportunity to address the disadvantage which is so apparent in the Closing The Gap annual reports.


Graeme East, Yamba



Clarence Valley Independent, Letters, 26 July 2023:


Ed,


In his lengthy dissertation (CVI 12/7/23) Oscar Tamsen answers his own question i.e., details of the voice is to be the duty of the incumbent government and rightly so!


By voting Yes, we are constitutionally recognising the 65,000 years of First Nations tenure of the continent – such advisory bodies are in operation in Canada, Finland, Sweden, Norway etc.


The naysayers’ (e.g., Dutton et al) insistence on more detail and the accompanying mis/disinformation and vitriol, collectively, is simply a political ploy to sink the referendum.


This tactic is no more than a continuation of the annoying Aussie classic to deny First Nations progress i.e. “I’m not racist, BUT ——!”


Naysayers cite Māori influence in Kiwi politics – completely irrelevant as Māori legislative rights are supported by the Waitangi Treaty.


A No vote denies progress in Recognition and Reconciliation of our First Nations people i.e., ‘if not, when?’


Advice to Oscar and others is to be sceptical of conservative hogwash, treat SkyNews with the disdain it deserves and make sure you catch up with the ABC interview of Prof Ann Twomey (16/6/23) – Twomey from Sydney Uni is one of the country’s leading constitutional lawyers.


Ted Strong, Seelands


~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Byron Echo, online, Letters, 30 July 2023:


Byron Shire Council determines the policy for sewage treatment for the shire. This is not the prerogative of the Northern Rivers Reconstruction Corporation (NRRC).


Brunswick Valley Sewage Treatment Plant (BVSTP) is designed to treat 3,800kl/day of sewage, not stormwater. The current daily dry weather inflow at BVSTP varies between 1,400kl/day and 1,800kl/day. The previous elected Byron Council implemented a five-year investigation of the inflow infiltration (I/I) problem occurring in the Mullumbimby sewer gravity mains collection system and the stormwater collection system. A company that specialised in this field and also relining existing gravity mains thus solving the I/I problem.


The five-year period is up and the I/I still remains; this is very visible during rain events in Mullumbimby and the substantial increase of the daily inflow into BVSTP. Five years with no improvement to the existing problem.


Council’s water and recycling division (W&R) is persisting with their plan to close Ocean Shores Sewage Treatment Plant (OSSTP) and pipe the sewage from OSSTP across Brunswick Valley to the Mullumbimby plant. Ocean Shores STP also has infiltration problems which are obvious in the inflow increase during rain events. OSSTP’s capacity is 1,600kl/day.


The current design concept of BVSTP is a biological reduction. These plants depend on their hydraulic load remaining below their design capacity to operate effectively. The extra load that will be transferred from OSSTP during dry weather risks adversely affecting the hydraulic load at BVSTP, during rain events it will most definitely overload the BVSTP’s hydraulic design capacity.


There now is the proposed Saddle Road development. If this is approved the sewage from this development will go to BVSTP.


The Water & Sewer Advisory Committee has not discussed or been asked to discuss these issues and the effect it will have on the BVSTP. Why not?


It is time the elected council asked questions of W&R: why after five years of investigations by a company retained by W&R to fix the I/I problem in Mullumbimby has nothing changed? How does W&R intend BVSTP to cope with the increased hydraulic load and still operate satisfactorily?


Alan Dickens, Ballina



Byron Echo, online, Letters, 28 July 2023:


Hijacked: residents’ car park Mullum


I note his [the mayor’s] reference to the loss of the residents’ car park just left of the roundabout from the railway crossing. Residents are aghast at Byron Council’s secret decision to sell that car park for a really large housing development – plus Council staff are to live there!


People are not happy at all about this, shocked and very disgusted! Authority has been handed to our general manager by Byron councillors, except Duncan Dey, to ‘handle’ the tender process.


This is not a ‘done deal’ and, as residents have not been consulted on this, it needs to be challenged. It’s such a secretive decision – hence the question: why? With no one allowed (except if speaking in public access) to attend Council meetings because the Conference Room (since the 2022 flood!) is too small, residents do not know what is discussed at those meetings!


The 2022 flood drainage’ is the vital subject, as has been reported extensively by so many residents. However, Council continue to deny anything needs to be done about it, except for a few areas. The North Byron Flood Risk Management Study, October 2020 states: ‘Ongoing maintenance of the drainage network is important to ensure it is operating with maximum efficiency to reduce risk of blockage or failure… Modification of drainage – installation of new or larger channels or culverts can increase conveyance and help reduce upstream peak flood levels or reduce duration of inundation. ASSESSMENT – existing drainage network is believed to be well below capacity for current development.’ A drainage assessment was undertaken for New City Road in 2018 (Ref 20), and identified a number of issues at this location. The entrance to Marshalls Creek is constricted by rock walls.


This flooding ‘jigsaw’ can be solved.


Jillian Spring, Billinudgel


Saturday 3 December 2022

News Tweet of the Week

 

 

Saturday 10 September 2022

Quotes of the Week

 

Lend Lease, Stocks and Holdings, Parkes Development and L.J. Hooker all bought land in the Gosford and Penrith areas soon after publication of the Outline Plan. (Sunday Australian 5 March 1972) The inability of local and state government services to keep pace with the rate of subdivision by these developers was contributing, according to the Sunday Australian (5 March 1972) to the escalating price of blocks. In 1970 the average price of vacant land in Sydney was $7,240 per acre, in 1971 $8,969, and by 1972 had risen to $11,802 an acre. (Financial Review 28 July 1972). The beneficiaries of rising land prices are clear enough. According to the present Federal Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr T. Uren, MHR) the poor in general and young couples in particular are the ones who suffer.”

[Leonie Sandercock, (1974) PROPERTY, POLITICS AND POWER : A HISTORY OF CITY PLANNING IN ADELAIDE, MELBOURNE AND SYDNEY SINCE 1900]


To Juanita, there was an urgent need for answers to the problem of rehousing old and low-income people in their own neighbourhoods. This was already occurring in Darlinghurst and it was time it was also taken into account by planners in Kings Cross. Juanita’s reaction to Paul Strasser’s projected Parkes Developments’ proposal marked the beginning of the end of her ‘soft’ editorial policy. She was outraged when Parkes offered to buy her home for what was an extraordinary amount of money for a small terrace in 1973—$200 000. She refused, and she recounted later to the Sydney Morning Herald that she had come under ‘all sorts of unimaginable pressures’. ‘I began to realise that if I was getting into so much trouble—owning my own house and a newspaper—what hope would a pensioner have?’ But the experience was a catalyst for her to also embrace a more formal presence in the Victoria Street power plays. She formed the Victoria Street Ratepayers’ Association and became its secretary. Through this tactic she was able to stall Parkes’ twenty-eight-storey development, as well as gaining another lever against overdevelopment on the west side. With this delay, the Parkes’ plan would ultimately lapse.

[Peter Rees, (2004) KILLING JUANITA, p.78]


REASONS FOR DECISION

1 The appellant (“Hometown”) owns and operates a residential land lease community in Lennox Head, New South Wales (“Community”). The Community is governed by the Residential (Land Lease) Communities Act, 2013 (NSW) (“Act”).

2 On or about 4 November 2020, Hometown acquired the home located at site 4 of the Community from a former home owner for a purchase price of $207,500. It refurbished the home and marketed it for sale.

3 On 5 March 2021, Ms Bullivant entered into a sale agreement to purchase the home at site 4 from Hometown for a purchase price of $260,000.

4 On 6 March 2021, Ms Bullivant entered into a site agreement (within the meaning of the Act) with Hometown in respect of the home at site 4 in which she agreed to pay $192 per week.

5 By application filed 28 July 2021, Ms Bullivant sought orders from the Tribunal pursuant to section 157(1) of the Act asserting, in summary, that Hometown, as operator comply with its obligation to set fees for the site at fair market value and compensation for the difference between fair market value and the site fees charged by Hometown under the site agreement since its inception.

The Decision of the Tribunal

6 In its decision of 21 December 2021, the Tribunal found, in summary, that Part 10 of the Act and, in particular, s 109 applied to the sale of the home at site 4 to Ms Bullivant and that the site fees charged by Hometown exceeded fair market value. The Tribunal held that fair market value of site fees for site 4 was $164.40 and ordered a reduction of the site fees under the site agreement to that amount (subject to the term of the site agreement providing for a 4% annual increase in site fees). The primary member found that section 109(6) applied to the site agreement entered into between Hometown and Ms Bullivant and made orders for the reduction of Ms Bullivant’s site fees

[Civil and Administrative Tribunal, New South Wales, Hometown Australia Lennox Pty Limited v Debra Bullivant [2022] NSWCATAP 161 (17 May 2022)]


Friday 22 April 2022

Dr. Scott Burchill on the subject of "Problems in Australian Journalism" - a timely reminder in the middle of this 2022 federal election campaign

 


Dr. Scott Burchill, ABC Breakfast Show, 19 April 2022
SNAPSHOT IMAGE: ABC News 
















From the pen of Dr. Scott Burchill, Honorary Fellow, Faculty of Arts and Education, School of Humanities & Social Science, Deakin University, at https://iranalyst.medium.com/problems-in-australian-journalism-c79573279462, 18 April 2022:



Problems in Australian Journalism

(updated and expanded)


Whether we are being directed to a news story by an editor or an algorithm, the task of filtering the dross from the insightful remains the most important challenge for those who ‘consume’ political information.

This is a much more important concern than perennial angst about concentrated media ownership in Australia, or whether a Royal Commission should be held into News Corporation.


Despite new media platforms provided by revolutionary advances in information technology, the structural problems facing political journalists who create the ‘content’ of these stories are mostly the same today as they were in the past.


Here are four which help to shape our views about the world outside Australia, followed by those shone into high relief by the election campaign in Australia.


Missing Context


Too many journalists have a limited capacity for critical thinking because of an impoverished historical knowledge, and therefore cannot place real time announcements and actions by governments and their opponents in any philosophical or historical context for their audiences.


This is partly the fault of journalism courses at universities, which should provide post-graduate training rather than undergraduate degrees. Journalism is not an academic discipline nor an apprenticeship, and should be seen as a skill set built on top of foundational knowledge in the humanities and social sciences.


The veracity of sources should always be tested. For example, journalists should be very sceptical of “intelligence leaks” which cannot be verified, but which sound authoritative only because they are confidential or constitute confirmation bias. Open-source material is more reliable.


Everyone who faithfully reported the phony WMD pretext for the 2003 war against Iraq should have had the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin “incident” uppermost in their minds before giving Western governments the benefit of their doubts again. How many journalists covering the lead up to the 2003 war had even heard of it? Governments lie and deceive all the time, especially about their wars. Google ‘curveball’.


The new “China” scare, including exaggerated and preposterous claims about China’s military intentions in the region, reflects a paucity of knowledge about earlier bouts of Sinophobia in the West, and would be very different discussion if the Cold War and modern Chinese history were better understood. Those following events over the last three years who have no sense of déjà vu just haven’t done their homework. A good antidote is James Peck’s Washington’s China.


The same applies to Russia’s illegal attack on Ukraine. The starting point for understanding this war, especially its timing, is NATO’s eastward expansion into Europe since the implosion of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s and the role of the US in Ukraine since 2016. At the risk of stating the obvious, the challenge for journalists is to provide context for a better understanding of the causes of the war, not joining with governments to play the blame game. Unfortunately, how the attack on Ukraine has been covered in the Western media is strikingly similar to the way the 9/11 attacks were presented in their aftermath: context-free.


By the time a political claim is exposed as fraudulent, the media circus has moved on from ‘old news’ to another ‘new’ issue with an equally brief shelf life. This is because news and information have become disposable commodities to be consumed like fruit and vegetables. This is how capitalism treats information.


Flak and distractions are often taken at face value, uncritically reported thanks to a remarkable level of political naivety and quiescence across the Fourth Estate. Given almost everything is now searchable and recorded for posterity, there are no excuses for the success of diversionary tactics regularly undertaken by governments at the insistence of their spin doctors.


Obvious questions about policies are just not posed.


Why is this being announced now and in this way?


Which questions do the government not want asked of it?


Why is the media being steered in this direction — away from what?


What is the political motive behind this decision: who wins and who loses?


Often misconstrued as adversarial, critical journalism should be based on a comprehensive knowledge of the subject in question and a well-founded suspicion of those with power and wealth.


Overton Windows & False Balances


Journalists should continuously ask themselves: what is considered the permissible range of opinion on this subject and why is it circumscribed in the way that it has been? The Overton Window, as it is called, should be opened as widely as possible, otherwise key aspects of a topic will be misunderstood or ignored entirely.


It is always easier to repeat and recycle familiar nostrums and orthodoxies than to challenge them: the former requires no elaboration or any examples, while the latter takes time to explain and will confuse and confound pre-existing assumptions.


Alternative accounts must confront the tyranny of concision, which reduces detailed and complex narratives to sound-bytes and photo ops. If newspaper analysis cannot be reduced to 800 words, they must find another home where ‘long-form’ journalism is still practiced.


How does narrowing the spectrum of legitimate opinion work in practice? Here are some examples.


The discussion of politically-motivated violence, for example, presupposes that the West is always the innocent victim of terrorism but never its perpetrator. This is demonstrably untrue, but it sets the tone of the discussion to look at what is done to us rather than by us.


Why are the Pentagon’s remote controlled drone attacks on innocent civilians in Afghanistan, Syria or Yemen portrayed as self-defence when they constitute a textbook definition of terrorism? Why is there so little interest in the role of the US spy base which Australia hosts at Pine Gap in targeting people for assassination by the United States?


Why are the occupied people of Gaza not entitled to self-defence against Israel’s state terrorism when it periodically bombs them with US-made aircraft and munitions, acts which have turned the small strip of densely populated blockaded land into a living hell without safe drinking water? Why are incidents in a one-sided occupation described as “clashes”, implying some equality of power?


Why is Iran described as a rogue state which sponsors terrorism in the Middle East when its scientists and officials are routinely murdered by Mossad agents and US drones?


Given the preoccupation with Russia’s crimes in Ukraine, why can the US and Israel regularly bomb Syria without any media discussion of these violations of that country’s sovereignty? Who gave Washington the right to grant the Golan Heights, Syrian territory under international law, to Israel?


The short answer to these and many similar questions is that we judge our own actions, and those of our friends and allies, by a different set of ethical standards to the ones we apply to designated enemies. Our foreign policy is hypocritical and unprincipled, though such a view is considered “dissident”.


The very opposite should apply. As Noam Chomsky explains the basis of moral consequentialism:


People are responsible for the anticipated consequences of their choice of action (or inaction), a responsibility that extends to the policy choices of one’s own state to the extent that the political community allows a degree of influence over policy formation.


Responsibility is enhanced by privilege, by the opportunity to act with relative impunity and a degree of effectiveness.


For profession of high principles to be taken seriously, the principles must first and foremost be applied to oneself, not only to official enemies or those designated as unworthy in the prevailing political culture.


Our own behaviour, and the actions of friends and allies, should be scrutinised first. That’s where we have moral responsibility and some influence, however small. We have almost no influence on governments with which we have strained relations. It is the citizens of those states who bear responsibility for the actions of their governments, though in many cases dissent is more perilous than anything we might face: no doubt Julian Assange would demur here about the suggestion of “might”.


This is less ‘whataboutism’ and more to do with barracking for the West and supporting its interests by reinforcing existing narratives which remain unchallenged. One cost of this is the loss of our own credibility in advocating universal human rights. Another, significantly more important, is greater human suffering.


Legitimate concerns should be expressed about Beijing’s treatment of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang and restrictions imposed on Hong Kong and in the South China Sea, but there is very little we can do to influence decisions taken by a government we are distancing ourself from. Given China is our most important trading partner and the West must engage with Beijing if climate change is to be seriously addressed, this approach is counter-productive.


As a fellow member of the Quad and the so called ‘club of democracies’ we have much more influence over India, but Western leaders remain mute about Narendra Modi’s Hindu extremism, especially his appalling policies in Kashmir. This is because, with few exceptions such as Brian Toohey, they aren’t asked questions by the media who have easy access to them. The Morrison Government does not want to be asked about Modi’s outrages and a supine media class is happy to oblige.


The demonisation of Vladimir Putin and all things Russian, is a very different story. It goes without challenge, context or a consideration of the logical consequences of widening the cleavage between Moscow and the West.


Riyadh’s atrocities in Yemen leading to a cholera epidemic, Jakarta’s brutal 50 year repression in West Papua and Morocco’s illegal occupation of the Western Sahara should be higher priorities because the West is complicit in these crimes with arms sales and diplomatic protection offered to the culprits. Again, there is silence from the media, and therefore governments are not held to account for their actions.


It’s a simple truism that concerns about human rights violations are universally expressed and applied or they are not principles at all.


Russian “election meddling” is a preoccupation of governments in the North America and Western Europe, while promiscuous US interventions in the politics of countries around the world, including the overthrow of legitimate democratic governments, attracts little if any media interest at all.


Compare China’s behaviour towards Taiwan, whose sovereign control the West acknowledges, with US behaviour towards Cuba or its “meddling” in Ukraine on Russia’s border. Or Israel’s colonisation of the West Bank. Which of these violates international law and the ‘rules-based global order’ we hear the West boasts about?


Why would anyone with a knowledge of the overthrow of the Mossadegh government in 1953 by the US and UK be surprised by Iran’s hostility to the West? Journalists should not think that history is as conveniently forgotten in these countries as it is here.


There are not always two sides to every story, with a ‘balanced’ position to be found at the ‘sensible centre’. When it comes to immunology, environmental science or the holocaust, to take only three examples, there is no range of legitimate opinion. Seeking the centre is not about being even-handed, it’s a claim that there is always a range of legitimate opinion on most subjects and safe harbour should centre on compromise: don’t pick sides. This is dangerous nonsense.


Stenography


Many journalists are too dependent on drip feeds from political elites, ranging from the unedited stenography of government ‘messaging’ to ‘exclusives’ — beating competitors to a story. Authorised leaks from incontinent MPs may be welcomed by the ideologically aligned, but they almost always come with conditions attached — usually favourable media coverage. Editors are largely to blame for this by privileging exclusivity and ‘insiderism’ over detailed analysis. It is never the role of the media to be the propaganda arm of political parties or governments.


There is nothing wrong with commentators cheering for their political team, as they openly do in Murdoch media and increasing in Nine newspapers. No-one should approach the op ed pages expecting balance or fair analysis. But when front page reporting becomes indistinguishable from government talking points, the audience is being short changed.


Too many journalists, as opposed to commentators, see nothing wrong with partisan advocacy as their job focus. In doing so they not only debase the profession, but more importantly they do their readers, listeners and viewers a grave disservice by denying them the capacity to evaluate alternative policies.


Stenography is fatal to the credibility of any journalist. If you want to be an ideologue and work for a politician and a cause, join their staff formally.


It is also boring and repetitious. According to the late international politics expert Fred Halliday, the term corkscrew journalism originated in the film The Philadelphia Story directed by George Cukor in 1940. Halliday defined it as “instant comment, bereft of research or originality, leading to a cycle of equally vacuous, staged, polemics between columnists who have been saying the same thing for the past decade, or more.” Ring any bells?


Professional Ethics


Philosophically and professionally, too many journalists have a poor understanding of their role in holding the powerful to account and how to represent their audiences. They fail to see the difference between being liked and being respected. Many want to be players and insiders, forgetting that their function is to ask the questions that their readers, listeners and viewers want posed. First and foremost, journalists are conduits for their audiences, not celebrities.


Some are willing hostages to opinion management and the public relations techniques of media minders. However, if they are to perform their roles properly, they must remain at arms-length from the subjects of their inquiries.


It’s not that difficult. They should avoid being schmoozed by drinks at The Lodge, and say no to junkets and being duchessed around the Middle East on the dime of local lobby groups acting for a foreign state. If a foreign state lobby awards a journalist a prize for their reporting, they have been fatally comprised.


Politicians and their staff are not friends to cultivate, no matter how hard they try to flatter or invite a journalist into the inner sanctums of power. Success should be measured by the enemies made amongst the powerful. The shakers and movers are always looking to co-opt the sympathetic and impressionable. After all, the overwhelming majority of leaks come from politicians not whistleblowers.


Interviewers should learn how to control verbal exchanges with media trained politicians by anticipating their tactics and working around them. They should press hard without being personal, highlighting contradictory and inconsistent remarks over time.


Gotcha’ moments such as Anthony Albanese’s stats “gaffe” might be tempting for journalists seeking a headline, but like fast food they are not very satisfying to information consumers. Leadership contests and elections attract subscriptions and clicks. They are headlines designed to sell audiences to advertisers, but they are usually poor substitutes for the hard slog of detailed, substantive research.


Too many journalists are comfortable with ‘personified politics’ rather than the evaluation of policies. They rigidly focus on leaders, personalities and the election race when they could easily forget the ephemeral gimmicks and photo ops which spin doctors want to see on the nightly news. Their focus should be on policies, both what is openly presented and what is deliberately concealed or omitted. Politics is a lot more than third rate entertainment for ugly people.


Journalists and editors do face significant challenges. The death of a thousand funding cuts to the leading public broadcaster, and the implied threat of future reductions linked to unfavourable political coverage, induces ABC management and journalists to be less critical of the government of the day, especially hostile and suspicious LNP governments. Consequently, they position themselves in the “sensible centre” which is actually the conservative right, and become increasing indistinguishable from their privately-owned competitors.


Technical competence is emphasised and privileged at the expense of intellectual knowledge, background preparation and professional skill. Mouse clicks, page views and social media feedback now structure the delivery of news content and analysis.


One consequence of this during an election campaign is a shrinking insular media bubble, where dubious opinion polls, headlines, partisan barracking, ‘who won the week?’ and the daily agenda repeat themselves in an endless and co-ordinated loop. The underlying assumption is that the horse race will be decided inside the bubble, not outside where the great unwashed are starved of serious policy discussion and evaluation. That is why insider status is so highly valued by journalists: they can be players, not just observers. On the odd occasion when policy analysis leaks outside the bubble, it is invariably refracted through the question of how this will influence the vote rather than whether the policy might be good or bad for the country. This amounts to professional misconduct.


Calls for a Royal Commission into News Corporation assume there are problems with the media in Australia that can only be uncovered through an investigation by the Crown. Yet there is probably very little that isn’t already well known.


Anti-competitive practices are there for everyone to see. The alignment of business interests with right wing opinion and calls for the privatisation of the ABC are neither new nor subtle. The concentration of media ownership is hardly secret, but at a time when private media owners struggle to build viable business models, greater diversity in the mainstream isn’t coming any time soon. Besides, thanks to the internet there are more sources of information available to the curious today than at any time in history. They are often superior to the mainstream.


If journalists were more diligent and professional, and information consumers developed better filtering mechanisms, most of these problems would disappear.



An earlier version of this article was published at Pearls & Irritations on 8 January 2022.

Dr Scott Burchill taught International Relations at Deakin University for 30 years